Scottish Government (Correspondence)
We are sitting comfortably and we have the right pieces of paper, so I welcome everyone to the ninth meeting in 2006 of the Procedures Committee. Robin Harper has again sent his apologies; he is doing something else and cannot be here for agenda item 1.
Under agenda item 2, we will deal with correspondence from Christine Grahame, who is here this morning. She is not a member of the committee but, like any non-member, she may participate in our discussions.
We have discussed this issue quite extensively and the paper that the clerks have produced covers it reasonably well. I have some sympathy with Christine Grahame's view that the public do not distinguish adequately between the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. If Christine Grahame has constructive ideas on how to sort that out, I would be happy to listen to them. However, today we have come down to the specific issue of whether questions should be addressed to an individual minister or to ministers collectively, which is the current practice.
I invite members to comment on the correspondence so far, after which I will ask Christine Grahame to join in. Does anyone have anything to add to our previous discussion?
Like you, convener, I have considerable sympathy with some of Christine Grahame's views. It pains me that, when we meet the public, we still have to explain the difference between the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament. However, I have tended to take the view that it is up to us—the Opposition parties in particular—to educate the people whenever possible.
Sometimes it becomes monotonous to hear every oral question begin with the words
"To ask the Scottish Executive",
although I am surprised that some members still occasionally forget to say it.
However, despite my sympathy, the paper from the clerks has rounded up the issue. There is little that I would desire to change.
There is nothing that I want to add to the contribution that I made at our previous meeting.
Christine Grahame was not a spectator at the contest at our previous meeting. We had a considerable discussion. Christine, would you like to elaborate on your second letter or to make any further points?
I want to make it plain that the issue is not party political. No matter who was in power after the next election, I would still be pursuing it.
It is very strange that other Governments are called Governments but we are called by what I have described as an administrative term. That causes confusion among the public, and I am obliged to the convener for agreeing with me on that.
As members can see in my letter, I have conceded that the Scotland Act 1998 constrains what can be done. I thank the clerks for their analysis and I thank the convener for sending it to me. As I say in my letter, paragraph 7 of that analysis says that "Scottish Executive" and "Scottish Ministers" are statutory terms and are synonymous.
It makes sense to pursue the issue. When one asks a question, one could say, "To ask the Minister for Health and Community Care", or, "To ask the Minister for Communities", rather than saying, "To ask the Scottish Executive". That would help the chamber office and others to know which minister the question was directed towards, because a question can sometimes cut across portfolios.
Another issue that is not covered in my letter but which crossed my mind yesterday relates to public petitions. I am not sure of the standing orders as they relate to petitions, but I have sought direction from the Public Petitions Committee and have been told that petitions have to use the term "Scottish Executive" because of the Scotland Act 1998. However, that may be challengeable. In motions, we can use the term "Scottish Government", so it would be useful if we could also use "Scottish Government" in petitions, instead of "Scottish Executive".
I am trying to stretch the possibilities within the constraints of the Scotland Act 1998, and I am doing so for reasons of transparency and accountability, which are principles of this Parliament. If we want the Parliament to be transparent and accountable, the words that we use are terribly important. That is why I want the term "Scottish Government" to be used.
I accept Alex Johnstone's point that it is up to other parties to use the term, and I do. However, that is not really what I am getting at. I want us to use terms appropriately in standing orders and in our procedures. I think that it would be possible, within the terms of the Scotland Act 1998, to ask a question directly of a minister, and I wonder whether the committee would be prepared to find out whether that is the case. I also wonder whether we could use the term "Scottish Government" in petitions. That would not be obligatory; if someone wanted to use the term "Scottish Executive", as is done in motions, that would be all right.
Thank you.
I will take your points in reverse order. It might be reasonable to ask the clerk to clarify with the Public Petitions Committee whether it has any view on the matter.
We should determine first whether we want to enter into the debate. I am content with where things are and with the note that we have received from the clerk, so I propose that we pursue the matter no further and that we close it today.
Okay. That is a proposition.
As no one wishes to propose that we should do the contrary and pursue the matter further, the committee's view seems to be that we have dealt with the matter fully in the exchange of correspondence. We have heard what Christine Grahame had to say; she might want to pursue some of her points by another route.
You have read my mind, convener.
I think that we have given the issue a good airing. I thank Christine Grahame for her attendance and interest.